not be entirely positive. The Settlement could compromise fundamental
library values such as equity of access to information, patron privacy, and
intellectual freedom. In order to mitigate the possible negative effects the
Settlement may have on libraries and the public at large, the Library
Associations request that this Court vigorously exercise its jurisdiction over
the interpretation and implementation of the Settlement. Indeed, in its order
approving the Settlement, the Court should make clear that it intends to
oversee the Settlement closely.
The Library Associations urge the Court to exercise this authority vigorously
to ensure the broadest possible public benefit from the services the
Settlement enables.
In particular:
Any library or other possible institutional subscriber must have the
ability to request this Court to review the pricing of an institutional
subscription. The Court’s standard of review should be whether the price
meets the economic objectives set forth in the Settlement, i.e., “(1) the
realization of revenue at market rates for each Book and license on behalf
of Rightsholders and (2) the realization of broad access to the Books by
the public, including institutions of higher education.”1
Any entity must have the ability to request this Court to review the
Registry’s refusal to license copyrights to books on the same terms
available to Google.
Any class member must have the ability to request this Court to review
the procedures by which the Registry selects members of its board of
directors, and to evaluate whether the Registry properly considers the
interests of all class members in its decision-making.
Any user must have the ability to request this Court to direct Google to
provide the user with a list of books excluded from any of its services for
editorial or non-editorial reasons, and an explanation of why it was
excluded. Google already must provide the Registry with a list of books
excluded for editorial reasons.2
Any researcher must have the ability to request this Court to review the
reasonableness of a Research Corpus host site’s refusal to allow the
researcher to conduct a research project at the host site.
RLI 264 5
The Case for Regulating Google and the Proposed Book Rights Registry
(
C O N T I N U E D
)
JUNE 2009 RESEARCH LIBRARY ISSUES: A BIMONTHLY REPORT FROM ARL, CNI, AND SPARC
Previous Page Next Page